This thread is similar to most of the UFO conspiracy ones: people endlessly argue the topic but the most forget that it is not a topic of science because it deals with individual and often isolated experiences and may involve unique perception states. It is, again and again, paraphrasing Pass, the case of Sommeliers relying on Chemists.
Let’s, at least, agree that:
1) Hearing perception, as any other cognitive functions, is relevant. Case in point: I have a friend with a sort of superhuman audio perception (confirmed by tests) who prefers a certain level of emphasis in the midrange (including sibilance range) while I can’t tolerate it for more than a minute. I have a simple explanation why that might be the case: he hears much more in lowest and the highest range of the audio spectrum so it is only natural for him to emphasize the mids to normalize it. In short, if a cable sounds better even for a single person in their own system after they spend hours of listening to a wide range of material (or they spot a UFO and are not known to hallucinate) that alone ends the topic for me.
2) No audio-path component can be evaluated alone and should exclude the original sound source or space we listen to it (or headphones we use). Case in point, the same component may have a different impact on another component in different systems and may result in a "worse" or "same" or "better" experience for various listeners. One question, however, will remain: what is "worse", "same" or "better" unless it is A/B-ed with a wide range of live sounds in the same listening space (preferably including human speech too). If the majority of listeners hears no difference after changing a cable in the same system ad after they spend hours of listening to a wide range of material (or they never spot a UFO) that does not surprise me either.
Let’s, at least, agree that:
1) Hearing perception, as any other cognitive functions, is relevant. Case in point: I have a friend with a sort of superhuman audio perception (confirmed by tests) who prefers a certain level of emphasis in the midrange (including sibilance range) while I can’t tolerate it for more than a minute. I have a simple explanation why that might be the case: he hears much more in lowest and the highest range of the audio spectrum so it is only natural for him to emphasize the mids to normalize it. In short, if a cable sounds better even for a single person in their own system after they spend hours of listening to a wide range of material (or they spot a UFO and are not known to hallucinate) that alone ends the topic for me.
2) No audio-path component can be evaluated alone and should exclude the original sound source or space we listen to it (or headphones we use). Case in point, the same component may have a different impact on another component in different systems and may result in a "worse" or "same" or "better" experience for various listeners. One question, however, will remain: what is "worse", "same" or "better" unless it is A/B-ed with a wide range of live sounds in the same listening space (preferably including human speech too). If the majority of listeners hears no difference after changing a cable in the same system ad after they spend hours of listening to a wide range of material (or they never spot a UFO) that does not surprise me either.
